Legal Basis for Certification Light Aircraft in Australia

[vh-foobar]

What is the current legal basis that Light Aircraft in Australia are certified?

e.g. How are CAR 3 certified such as C-172, PA-31, Baron/Bonanza, C90 etc certified in Australia, and later FAR 23 certified aircraft such as a B76, c208 etc.

Specifically what CASR, or other instruments, etc?

When I first started all the Australian light aircraft, had a little book with some grotty photocopies, for performance data based on Australian certification rules, and maybe the OEMs handbook.

[Sunfish]

CASA certification? You mean like kosher pork?

[LeadSled]

vhr-foobar,
The short answer is CASR Parts 21-35.There is no "problem" with CAR3 --- that's a large proportion of the fleet, there ain't too may FAR 23 aircraft around.
Sadly, CASA have been buggering it up, in recent years, all about micro-management again -- surprise, surprise.
Tootle pip!!

[duncan_g]

Foreign certified aircraft are accepted per CASR 21.29A and issued with a Type Acceptance Certificate - see https://www.casa.gov.au/licences-and-certification/standard-page/foreign-manufactured-aircraft

The TAC lists the accepted foreign TCDS which details the certification basis e.g. CAR 3, FAR Part 23 etc. In the case of the FAA, these are available from RGL Home (http://rgl.faa.gov/)

[djpil]

When I first started all the Australian light aircraft, had a little book with some grotty photocopies, for performance data based on Australian certification rules, and maybe the OEMs handbook.The old Australian certification requirements were in ANO 101.4 (transport) and 101.22 (normal, semi-aerobatic and aerobatic) from memory. Back then every imported type had to be certified independently again by the Australian authority. I see an old thread on this topic Ano 101.22 [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums (http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-53661.html) (to save JT from straining his memory again).

So, all had the amateurish local flight manual - worth reading the recent ATSB report on the Chipmunk spin accident to see how bad they were. Then there was the rule change (known by some as the great flight manual debacle) whereby all aeroplanes had to swiftly change to the original (as updated) flight manual. Some aeroplanes around still haven't done that - that Chipmunk was one.

The Australian built Airtourers were certified to ANO 101.22 only but fortunately now have a new GAMA spec flight manual. The Airtourer T-6 developed later in NZ was certified to FAR 23 by the NZ authorities.

[Checklist Charlie]

djpil, the Airtourer AFM saga is not necessarily a good story. If you compare the "new" format AFM to the Pilot Handling Notes issued by the likes of LVAC and the original DCA Flight Manual of many years ago you will find the new issue manual has the imperial measurements now in metric form and still with the same spelling and punctuation errors of the originals.

They were also issued without reflecting the current mod status of the aircraft.

Not a very useful operational document and in some cases downright dangerous and unsafe.

CC

[vh-foobar]

Foreign certified aircraft are accepted per CASR 21.29A and issued with a Type Acceptance Certificate - see https://www.casa.gov.au/licences-and-certification/standard-page/foreign-manufactured-aircraft

The TAC lists the accepted foreign TCDS which details the certification basis e.g. CAR 3, FAR Part 23 etc. In the case of the FAA, these are available from RGL Home (http://rgl.faa.gov/)

Thanks that was the answer I was looking for.

I have a follow on question, were all the existing Australian aircraft moved to their relevant type acceptance certificate?, e.g. all C-152s operate under their relevant type acceptance certificate, looking at TAC list that appears to be the case.

[djpil]

the Airtourer AFM saga is not necessarily a good story. If you compare the "new" format AFM to the Pilot Handling Notes issued by the likes of LVAC and the original DCA Flight Manual of many years ago you will find the new issue manual has the imperial measurements now in metric form and still with the same spelling and punctuation errors of the originals.The AT115 Handling Notes from Moorabbin Aviation Academy I thought was OK however some omissions by the apparent cut and paste from a Cessna manual, for example, and it is nowhere near as good as the AFM/POH from 2002 that I have - I don't see (in just a skim through just now) any of those problems that you mention.

I wonder if JT still has a copy of ANO 101.22, I'd be interested in seeing the old requirements for a flight manual - were they required to contain all the information required to operate the aeroplane safely (as does FAR 23) or did it just have to contain the info specifically required by the ANO (and they were known to deny the inclusion of additional information).

[Checklist Charlie]

I too have a copy of MAA's V115 notes (used during the 70's with MQL and MUA) and agree it is different to the LVAC copy.

I am unaware of the source of your "AFM/POH from 2002" but those issued around that time did not come as truly reflecting the current mod status of the aircraft they were issued for. They came as if the aircraft had just come out of the factory (in the 1960's) and not been mod'd with larger engines, constant speed props and aux fuel tanks etc. None of these mod's appeared in the AFM as issued.

Reference in planning or even inflight to such an incomplete even deceptive document is demonstrably unsafe.

CC

[john_tullamarine]

Certainly have some archive copies of the 101 series but can't put my hands on them until I unpack a bunch of stuff in the shed.

The original Victa flight manual (I did my PPL on Victas in the mid-60s at RAC - Cec Randall/RNAC - Jack Blackwell/Stan Hone) was a pretty reasonable document as I recall. Still have that tucked away somewhere as well ...